Sure, dream. But those sort of dreams are not the basis upon which to say "Sachin's career record underrates how good he is".

To an extent, yes. There is nothing more than speculation to suggest otherwise.

13-06-2009, 02:03 PM

Sanz

Umar Gul. Was reading this and thought it was spot on and he gives another solid performance today. His stats don't do him justice and he is perhaps one of the most underrated cricketer of our times.

13-06-2009, 02:07 PM

Sanz

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smith

He averaged nearly 60 in Australia and more than 60 in England and those two countries make up about 70% of total cricket played by a consistent Aussie cricketer. So the argument that had he played for Australia, the averages could have been more than 60, is very much valid.

I think people pretty much get what they deserve. Even the most talented people have technical issues that would have to be ignored to project them higher.

A guy like Tendulkar plays with an angled bat off the back foot. That isnt an issue when he is 'in form' but it hurts him when he is a little out of form.

Botham had a batting technique well suited to the medium/quicks but he didnt get properly into line against the express bowlers and consequently he never knew where his off stump was.

Rhodes was a technical mess and a substandard Test cricketer until he was properly tutored.

etc

I think it is often too easy to overlook the deficiencies in certain players and then revise history as to what our expectations should have been.

For example Andy Caddick, on his day, was unplayable. Fast, bounce, swing, venom: he could have averaged low 20s in Test cricket. However, his failings meant that was not possible.

Completely agree with this. Stats aren't everything, but they're the bottom line. How many runs you score is a better judge of how good a player you were than how effortless you scored your boundaries or how classical your cover-drive looked. Everyone gets what they deserve.

Ind33d. (To an extent, anyway - obviously an occasional player will have an amount of luck far above-average, whether some people like that or not.)

The "stats do not do justice" idea is simply a don't-go-there. Stats show what happened. "Stats do not tell the full story" is a much fairer phrase - because there is always more to a player than purely what his contributions to wins and losses are. Even if Ian Bell is an infinitely lesser batsman than Kevin Pietersen, he'll always be an infinitely more attractive one. And some players' runs can merely win a game; some players' runs can win a game and win a thousand hearts to boot.

It's in this way that cricket is about more than just stats. But how good someone is is about precious little besides. Though clearly an overall career average is a pretty meaningless thing, and always needs closer examination before real truths can be discerned.

13-06-2009, 03:14 PM

Richard

Quote:

Originally Posted by BoyBrumby

Gooch too. 42.5-ish doesn't really reflect how dominant he was for the middle portion of his career.

End portion, more like. However, the figures from said portion - 1990-1994 - do indeed do precisely such a thing. Ditto Tendulkar's 1990-2002.

Don't confuse the meaninglessness of a banal career average with the meaningfulness of stats, which are so much more than overall career averages.

13-06-2009, 03:19 PM

Smith

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sanz

Please do not make this another thread about Tendulkar.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard

End portion, more like. However, the figures from said portion - 1990-1994 - do indeed do precisely such a thing. Ditto Tendulkar's 1990-2002.

Don't confuse the meaninglessness of a banal career average with the meaningfulness of stats, which are so much more than overall career averages.

Even if Ian Bell is an infinitely lesser batsman than Kevin Pietersen, he'll always be an infinitely more attractive one.

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaat!

14-06-2009, 06:47 AM

zaremba

I was going to pick up on that too. I didn't, because I accept that if it's a pretty technique you're after, Bell is hard to beat. But to my mind Penisen is one of the most watchable batsmen I've ever seen.

14-06-2009, 07:50 AM

pasag

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sanz

Umar Gul. Was reading this and thought it was spot on and he gives another solid performance today. His stats don't do him justice and he is perhaps one of the most underrated cricketer of our times.

Yeah, I remember praising him a while back (couple of years ago now) on the forum and getting shot down. Fantastic player. Let's hope he remains fit and doesn't have to bowl on too many more disgustingly flat tracks.

14-06-2009, 08:30 AM

Uppercut

Quote:

Originally Posted by zaremba

I was going to pick up on that too. I didn't, because I accept that if it's a pretty technique you're after, Bell is hard to beat. But to my mind Penisen is one of the most watchable batsmen I've ever seen.

Even in terms of technique i find KP much better. His signature shot, effortlessly pushing it through midwicket for four off the back foot, is better than anything Bell can play.

14-06-2009, 09:29 AM

BoyBrumby

Quote:

Originally Posted by pasag

Yeah, I remember praising him a while back (couple of years ago now) on the forum and getting shot down. Fantastic player. Let's hope he remains fit and doesn't have to bowl on too many more disgustingly flat tracks.

I've offered my meagre stamp of approval before now too. Carried Pakistan's attack pretty much single handed in 2006 up here (until Asif returned for the forfeit anyway) and looks to have added a yard since then too without sacrificing his movement or accuracy.

Hope something can be done regarding Pakistan playing tests up here (or anyway else, come to that) becuase it'd be a travesty if Gul loses his best years through no fault of his own.

14-06-2009, 11:09 AM

rivera213

Umar Gul is an excellent limited overs bowler. I don't think he is great in the test format imo, though he can swing the ball and is much better now than when we faced him in 2006.

I don't know when the next schedule series against Pakistan is, but I'm sure he'll be more of a handful this time around.

------

As for the issue of stats showing what happened, I disagree. Stats do not take into account things such as match situations, pressure (especially in Sachin's case since he is bigger than Hinduism in India! Lol), quality of bowling faced etc.

Stats also don't tell you how fine a player a person was. I'm talking simply aesthetics but also the ability to time the first good length ball for a drive down the ground, being able to completely smother the best spinners of all time on a turning dust bucket etc.

Tendulkar for me, based on what I've seen (and I've seen all the bad of Tendulkar whereas I've only seen the good from Pollock, both Richards, Sobers, Bradman, Gavaskar etc and no play and misses, no mistimed shots etc. Only the dismissals) is No.1 and IMO deserves a much greater average than all of those I mentioned.

He at the very least deserves an average way above that of Ricky Ponting who has only cashed in during the batting era and after a great start from the openers more often than not.

I kind of agree with Richard on the subject of Ian Bell. I think aesthetically he is better than PIetersen (and even Viv Richards) when he's driving good length deliveries as though it's second nature.

I think KP and Viv are more talented since both can/could take a ball on a good length from outside off stump and whip it through the leg side. That requires a lot of skill. But either of those were as pleasing on the eye through the off side as Bell (on form) is IMHO.